Saturday, October 8, 2016

Simonides' claim to be the creator of Codex Sinaiticus continues to strengthen

Chris Pinto's radio show on 10/4/16, Codex Sinaiticus Revisited is a review and update of the evidence for Constantine Simonides' claim to have been the author of Codex Sinaiticus, a claim that grows more solid as others have done their own research based on Chris' work and become convinced of Simonides' claim.   I pray that his work will become instrumental in setting the Church free of what is in fact a huge lie foisted on Christian scholarship that serves only to undermine the authority of the Bible.

Chris is proving himself to be a dogged researcher capable of solving important historical mysteries, in this case overturning the accepted explanations of the status of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as authentic ancient manuscripts.   But all his documentaries have that stamp of original research, all reveal something important that goes against the accepted understanding, such as the character of the American founding, such as the influence of Alfred Kinsey. 

(Incidentally, he also deserves credit for solving the mystery of The Georgia Guidestones monument, actually tracking down the man who created it, and recording his investigation in the documentary Dark Clouds Over Elberton.  I found the revelation of the philosophical bent of its creator surprising myself, but it all hangs together.)

The evidence for Simonides' claims includes the validation of his credentials as a genuine paleographer and scholar of ancient manuscripts,  his legal acquittal of the charge of forgery, and Tischendorf's retraction of that accusation when he came to see that Simonides' Greek copy of the Shepherd of Hermas was genuine, and identical to the copy included in Codex Sinaiticus; as well as the testimony of a Greek monk who knew Tischendorf, exposing his story about finding the manuscript as a lie; and knew that Simonides was its author; plus the credibility of his own defense which was published in a London newspaper.  Chris reviews all this and probably more that I've forgotten. 

Eventually those who insist on dismissing Simonides should have to change their minds.

And I'm sure Chris depends on the Lord to guide him.  New revelations of the sort he produces show God's handiwork it seems to me.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Chris Pinto's Bridge to Babylon focuses on the Revision of 1881

Perhaps the bad English of the modern Bible translations isn't the most important thing, but I almost can't listen to any reading of any of them for that reason.  The NASB continues to be considered a particularly good translation so it is read regularly on my local Christian radio station, and John MacArthur, one of my favorite teachers, quotes from it in his sermons.  MacArthur also defends it as a good translation because it's true to the Greek text, an opinion that makes me cringe for another reason, since it's the corrupted Greek texts behind the modern Bibles that are the main reason they should be rejected.

Convincing people about this who aren't already convinced can seem like a lost cause, but I'm always happy when a new effort is made.  Chris Pinto's latest documentary, Bridge to Babylon, is now available [at Noise of Thunder radio or Adullam Films] and it promises to be a thorough expose' of the many different ways the 1881 English Revision is untrustworthy.  He has done a couple of radio programs about the film that should help show why it's important:  Look for the titles Bridge to Babylon on 9/1 and The Critical Text on 9/2.{UPDATE 10/8:  he's added a number of programs on the documentary since then].

My copy of Bridge to Babylon is on its way and I'm looking forward to it.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Simonides, Sinaiticus etc.

Got myself into a "discussion" of Sinaiticus and Simonides at EvC forum, without really intending to, and was pounced on by a couple of the regulars there who seem to be more interested in shooting down anything I say, or that Chris Pinto has to say, than in the actual facts of the matter.  But I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone happens by who would like to check it out.  Perhaps they've come up with something of interest, or maybe it's just a lot of hot air.  The discussion starts roughly about HERE

Thursday, March 13, 2014

It's All Going Down, Isn't It?

I did originally have in mind collecting many of the various mistreatments of scripture that were the result of the Revision of 1881 but haven't been up to it lately. I suppose I may yet get to it, but meanwhile I'm more or less waiting and wondering if there will be more to the Simonides story to post about.

Whether Simonides' claims to be the author of Codex Sinaiticus turn out to be true or not, however, John Burgon has already made the case very well that Sinaiticus is corrupt and should not be taken seriously, leaving the KJV as the only trustworthy Bible.  Nevertheless, despite what seems to me and others to be such an excellent case against it, Sinaiticus continues to be held up by Academia as "the oldest and best" of the Greek manuscripts and therefore its destructive effect on the Bible unfortunately has a clear path.

Chris Pinto's most recent radio program Cardinal Dolan and the Bible Hunters discusses a BBC production, The Bible Hunters, which makes it quite explicit that Codex Sinaiticus all by itself has destroyed the grounds of faith in the Bible for many Christians.

The other part of his show addresses Cardinal Dolan's affirmation that despite all the usual Plausible Deniability the Pope is promoting civil unions for homosexuals.  These two subjects are related of course because once the Bible has been discredited nothing it says about homosexuality has to be taken seriously.  And as Pinto points out, once the Pope is understood to be supporting gay unions the path is clear for the persecution of Christians who continue to hold to the Biblical view of homosexuality as sin.  Already what was once understood to be an unnatural act even by nonChristians, that couldn't even be imagined to gain the support as a normal activity it has today, is now used as a weapon against Christians, branding us as bigots and "haters" who lack Christian "love" of all things.  Christendom, once so-called, is already battered and bleeding from the destruction of the Bible, now it's just a matter of lining up the remaining Christians in front of the execution squad.  The devil must be very proud of his work.

We've known it's coming for some time, but now it seems it could all come down very rapidly in the near future.  This Pope could very well be the last Pope and the final Antichrist must therefore be just around the corner.

I'd like to think we might still be able to turn many in the churches to the truth about these things.  There are far too many Christians who accept the authenticity of the Bible-killing Codex Sinaiticus.  And what grounds do we then REALLY have for winning others to Christ?  Some hold to the illusion that the Bible remains inerrant even as they embrace as authentic the bogus texts that prove it's not.   I don't have much hope that they can be turned of course, all this is happening so fast and it's so depressing it's even hard to pray about it. 

I want to hope, however.   But our real hope is in Christ anyway, whatever happens on this earth. 

Look up for your redemption draweth nigh.    

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Nice Comment on Pinto's Post-Debate radio show

Chris Pinto on yesterday's radio show did his own review of Hiram Diaz's review which I posted below this one. 

This was by "mt" who appears to have read one of my blog posts, which of course makes me happy, and does a very nice job of saying what the debate was all about.


I think Dr. White's comments are a testament to just how successful the watering down of seminary / church history education in America is. As a former Catholic I can certainly testify of how startling it is to wake up to the facts of Rome's historical influences and how much further reaching they are than what we have been taught. But it seems strange that reformed believers want to argue the other side of the debate... perhaps b/c they haven't experienced what it feels like to come out of the stupor of false doctrine, and don't understand how deep it goes or how underhandedly it has been perpetrated on the world. This is perhaps also owed to the success of the propaganda put forth in modern day academia.   (I say this as someone with a master's level education myself. The elitism in academia can be overbearing.)

From listening to the debate, it "appeared" that Dr. White wanted to divert attention to the Jesuits, as a tactic to discredit Chris, b/c White does not see credibility in any of CJP's historical research on their reported conspiratorial behaviors. Probably also b/c he had such a weak argument against the actual topic. After all, these S.J.'s are so nice and smooth talking, they couldn't possibly be bad. Right? I would guess he knows that if he says something dogmatically and authoritatively enough, and often enough, his followers will still believe what he says without bothering to check it out for themselves. Quoting James White seems to bear as much authority as quoting scripture for some folks. Some of the blog posts of those who think he "won" would bear this out, IMO. The statements they make have no substance to suggest otherwise. But it seems clear Dr. White has a lot invested in his viewpoint and doesn't want to budge. No surprises there. I don't think it's any coincidence either that he was given the last word.

I think Chris was very gracious, Christ-like, and polite. But, in spite of Chris' composed demeanor, White, while more polite than usual, not only tried to detract from the agreed upon topic, but also hit below the belt at least a couple times with condescending remarks. I still find that disconcerting, because it seems the "debate" forum for him was more an attempt to squelch Chris' research and prove his own right-ness than it was to seek truth. He attempted to dominate the debate, restate the "rules", cut Chris off, hold Chris to standards he can't hold himself to, and justify himself as graciously deigning to take time to debate Chris because of his supposed noble mission to disprove Chris' theory.

I believe Chris' forthright manner and clearly stated historical citations showed his character to be above that of his "opponent". Time will tell how God will use it to expose the truth of the authenticity of these manuscripts vs those that uphold those time-tested scriptures, integral to our faith and the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. God may have opened a door through this debate to do just that. It seems Chris' film-making and podcasting experience prepared him well to deal with the time constraints of his first formal debate.

Meanwhile, we can only hope and pray that some of Chris' accusers will be convicted in their hearts and repent and apologize for calling him "a liar". These are the very people who demanded Chris' apologies and have not yet humbled themselves to do likewise. We will continue to pray that Chris will continue to be a shining light in spite of them, and will continue to rise above his critics. We all have the challenge of not becoming embittered when attacked in this manner and, from what I can see, Chris' priorities are right in this regard.

Best Review of the Debate, by Hiram Diaz

Chris Pinto posted this at his site, and HERE is the original source.  There is also a link to the debate itself there. I don't know who Hiram Diaz is but he absolutely nailed it about the debate:

by Hiram Diaz

Although I enjoy listening to debates, I’m not a big fan of them. This may sound contradictory, so let me explain. On the one hand, debates are a great way to become familiar with different points of view, be they non-Christian or Christian. In this respect, I appreciate the knowledge that can be gained from assessing each point and counterpoint making up the debate.

However, on the other hand, personality can often take the place of sound reasoning. The more aggressively one pursues his debate opponent, for instance, the stronger he appears to the audience, as one who is in the right. Why? Because his personality trumps the weakness of his argumentation. Thus, debates can swing in the favor of men who present well, as opposed to presenting their case well.

The debate over whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery, a debate between James White and Chris Pinto was, unfortunately, one that made me dislike debates even more.

Before I listened to the background information that Pinto presented in his documentary and on his podcast/radio show, I was pretty sure James White’s statements about Pinto’s ideas being far-fetched and based on loose threads woven together by conspiracy were right.

But when the debate took place a couple nights ago, I saw that Dr. White was wrong. Pinto presented documented history that challenged the official story regarding Simonides (i.e. the man who claimed to have penned Codex Sinaiticus); Dr. White, however, did not refute Pinto’s challenge.
Dr. White appealed to authority, asking Pinto if he had ever collated manuscripts of the Bible or if he was competent in Greek, in an attempt to show that Pinto’s ignorance was the only justification he had for believing that the case of Simonides was not a closed case.
But this kind of reasoning is fallacious.

Pinto was not arguing from the standpoint of one who knew either the collation process or was competent in, if not a scholar of, koine Greek. His credentials in these two fields (i.e. manuscript collation and ancient Greek) is completely irrelevant.

Pinto’s argument was drawn from historical records regarding the events and persons surrounding Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. White, therefore, had no reason to ask for such credentials. If the historical data Pinto presented are to be jettisoned, then Dr. White should have presented an argument in favor of ditching the historical sources to which Pinto made reference. But Dr. White did no such thing.

Also, Dr. White reduced Pinto’s cogent reasoning to a “conspiracy theory,” a term which is often used in American media to dismiss viewpoints that contradict the official story. And Dr. White used it in just that way. In other words, Dr. White uncritically dismissed Pinto’s argument to a “conspiracy theory.”

In short, here are the problems I had with the debate:

1. Dr. White argued fallaciously, appealing to authority when no such appeal was relevant to the matter at hand.

2. Dr. White made assertions, central to his argument, that cannot be empirically verified. For instance, he claimed that the task of manuscript collation could not be done by a nineteen year old. This is not an argument, nor is it an empirically verifiable fact, as it is a universal proposition. There are many people in history who have accomplished great things at even younger ages. Are these people historical fictions? If they are real people, then are the historical accounts of their great abilities to be dismissed as “conspiracy theories” or overblown accounts of otherwise “normal” individuals?

This is not a point that can be taken very seriously, moreover, considering the renown that Simonides had for his unusual intellectual gifts as a young man. Whether or not he was a prodigy, I don’t know. However, when there is evidence of men speaking highly of Simonides’ superior intellectual endowments, and there is no evidence to prove that a nineteen year old cannot collate biblical manuscripts and form a unique copy of the Bible from those collated texts, the testimony of writers contemporaneous with Simonides actually holds weight, where Dr. White’s assertion has none.
Chris Pinto presented a logically cogent case for his position. Dr. James White neither presented a logically cogent case, nor did he succeed in refuting Pinto’s position.

Again, Pinto presented actual historical documentation that drills numerous holes into the “official” story regarding Simonides, whereas Dr. White simply dismissed Pinto’s sources, failing to provide counter evidence to Pinto’s argument. Consequently, it is Pinto, in my opinion, who won the debate.

And what is troubling to me is that many will not (i.)be able to identify Dr. White’s fallacious reasoning and (ii.)will depend on personalities in their assessment of the debate.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Chris Pinto's assessment of the debate: not a matter of winning or losing

Chris Pinto's assessment of the debate is here and he did his usual great job of mustering his material and making his points.  He has command of his information and he has the right Christian attitude as well.

Was the Simonides question resolved in the debate?  Clearly not. 

I know I've been falling down on the job on this blog in recent months, being preoccupied with other things.  When I see a whole page of articles critical of Chris Pinto as a "conspiracy thinker" by another Christian ministry I'm not going to name, I feel the weight of my failure to keep up with these issues.   But Chris always answers that accusation very effectively. 

At the end he criticizes those of us who have made remarks in terms of who won the debate and makes it clear he doesn't think in those terms, that all the participants are on the same side, all seeking the truth that best serves the Lord.  Wonderful, I want to believe that, and in the most general sense I do believe it.  The problem is that the debate format itself demands a win/lose orientation, and those who are exercised in debating skills usually "win" it as far as making a more effective-sounding case for their side irrespective of the actual facts or truth they've brought out.

After hearing Chris' assessment of the debate I'm happily reminded of just how fully he commands his material, which didn't get to come out in the debate as I'd have hoped, as at the end of the debate I had felt that the wrong side of the issues had come out on top.  Again, the problem with the debate format is that it favors the wrong goals if what you are really concerned about is a collegial effort at resolving differences in the service of the Lord.  Rather than casting this sort of disagreement in a debate format it needs something more along the lines of a round-table discussion, and MUCH more time should be given to it.